Skip to main content

About your Search

20120501
20120531
SHOW
Book TV 135
The Five 102
Today 94
Hannity 75
( more )
STATION
CSPAN3 801
FOXNEWSW 529
CNNW 498
MSNBCW 493
CNN 492
MSNBC 452
FOXNEWS 448
SFGTV2 364
SFGTV 320
CSPAN2 286
CSPAN 237
CNBC 163
WUSA (CBS) 161
CURRENT 159
KQED (PBS) 155
WJZ (CBS) 141
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 7634
Korean 1
TOPIC
obama 3976
washington 3740
romney 2982
new york 2794
china 1900
california 1852
florida 1773
europe 1719
chicago 1382
texas 1295
virginia 1205
( more )
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 7,639 (some duplicates have been removed)
against every in the country everyone in the united states. and they started by taking commercial data in from at&t on everyone approximately 3 oh
in the country everyone in the united states. and they started by taking commercial data in from at&t on everyone approximately 3 oh 20 million calls a day were recorded by this device. that was just the initial participation. >> can i interrupt for just a
of grievances that the united states had against great britain in the early 19th century. many are associated with maritime disputes between great britain and the united states because this is the middle of that -- napolian wars. they are trying to establish trade, and they are impressing seamen from american vessels because they need to script crews to keep the royal navy manned because they were disputing with the british and the indians on the frontier, and british policy affected the prizes very badly, and prizes for american exports slumped during this period causing an agricultural depression making people angry. there's a whole range of those sort of grievances. basically, i think why the war was ultimately fought and why it was fought when it was because many of the disputes have been preceded in 1812 by a number of years without necessarily producing the declaration of war was that by the summer of 1811, the main grievance was something called the council, a british form of executive order, the american equivalent is the executive order issued by the president, and through the execut
in relations between russia and the united states there, have been many successes, including the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, cooperation on afghanistan, iran, and north korea. civilian nuclear power, and other areas. but there have been notable differences over syria, missile defense, human rights, enforcement of intellectual property rights and con dufkt elections last month. both president put spin and president obama have called for a deepening of economic cooperation between the two countries. the russian state duma its expected to ratify russia's succession to the wto in june or july. we expect 30 days after that, roughly, that russia will become a member of the world trade organization. for the united states, to take advantage of the new market openings in the russian market, congress must pass legislation to grant russia permanent normal trade relations treatment. the panel today will focus on prospects for improving relations with russia, and how the wto process has prompted russia to take measures to open its economy, to more international trade and investment. we had timed this pa
the president of the united states is on the ground in afghanistan. of course, we are in afghanistan because the attacks of 9/11 and now we know that president obama is meeting with afghanistan's president karzai, an unannounced and secret visit until this moment. some describe the relationship between our president and president karzai as "complicated." which could be the unstatement of the day. casey in point: a u.s. government released yesterday. new details of the level of corruption in afghanistan. and the unthinkable waste of billions upon billions of american tax dollars. officials in afghanistan are stealing american money according to the report. the afghan attorney general's office avoids prosecuting high profile corruption cases among other things. that's the situation as the president is on the ground if afghanistan our chief white house correspondent is at the white house. did you get any idea of this? and what do we expect to accomplish? >>reporter: the president's schedule was wide open all day leaving the possibility that he could have been going s
in the united states senate. he can start by putting americans to work by aproviding the keystone pipeline. he could do something about sky high gas prices by increasing american energy production and he could empower small businesses by cutting red tape and reempleg the regulatory process. he could deal with our crippling debt by encouraging democrats to pass a duj et. look, we want to work with the president, but it's about time that he gets serious, focused on jobs, focused on our economy and enough with the gimmicks. >>. [ inaudible ] >> doing a very good job. i do believe when it comes to fast and furious, we've got to get to the bottom of what happened and who's responsible. and the committee is doing that and i'm supporting their efforts. >> does that mean you are sea supporting -- he is in the process of right now writing a resolution you're supporting a resolution. >> i'm supporting in their efforts to hold those people in the department of justice accountable for what happened. the committee has work to do. they know what they have to do. they're pursuing a lot of unanswered question
that birth rights dramatically changed from the better and the provision is unique to the united states. this is a half hour. thanks to both of you for joining us. you will be talking about at this conference about birth right citizenship. set the stage for us in what is birth right citizenship. >> in a nut shell, this is the principal that any person born in the united states regardless of the status of their parents and theiran set offers and race and gender and religion and any other category is a citizen of the united states by virtue of being born here. you can become a citizen if you are an immigrant. the important point is this was not a principal that goes to the constitution. in the civil rights act of 1866. the first clause of the 14th amendment said any person born in the united states with or two minor exceptions were thought to be citizens of their own sovereignties, but any person born in the united states is a citizen. this was not necessarily the case of the civil war, the most dramatic example was dread scott in which the supreme court stated that no black person could
. and the cold war is not done yet. it's not just the fall of china. it's not just the united states cozying up to japan. but it's going to explode the cold war is going to heat up if you will, in korea. now, remember the last lecture, world war ii? we talked about korea being occupied by japan. once the war is over, the united states and the soviet union decide to divide korea with the united states being in control of the southern part of korea, the soviet union is going to be administering the northern part of korea. eventually, both u.s. and ussr agree that we will withdraw and allow the koreans to have some degree of self-determination. we're going to pull out, soviet union's going to pull out. the koreans will be able to determine their future and their fate. and we both did. the difference is, when we pulled out, we basically took everything with us. when the soviet union pulled out, they left behind a stockpile of weapons. the most modern military technology that they had at the time, and that's the temptation that was going to be used the following summer, 1950, north korea with the us
for attacks against the united states. >> thank you. let me just conclude by saying that former cia director mike hayden used used the analogy of a football field, the lines on the football field, and he talked about our intelligence operatives and others as the players on the field. and he said we need them to get chalk on their cleats, go right up to the line in carrying out what our approved policies of the united states. and if you think about it that way, it is really important to have policies that are transparent so that those who are carrying out the mission and those in the united states and those around the world who are trying to understand the mission know where the lines are. if we don't know what the lines are, some people will be risk averse, other people commit excesses. we have certain seeing a few of those, which are black eyes on our country. so i just want to applaud the fact that john brennan has come over here from the white house, spent over an hour with us, laying out in great detail what the rules are for something that has been revealed today, which is the use of dr
the united states senate, or congress. but the fact is they're not a permanent member of the council. >> uh-huh. >> we are. and as a permanent member of council, in fact, i think we're the only permanent member. and so we stand in a very special status that we are not currently able to exercise, and i think with respect to the senator's fears, and other fears, what you're trying to protect is something that would go against the interests of our country. that's what we need to be able to protect. if sudan votes to do something or blocks us from doing something that we're interested in doing, then there are plenty of other avenues of recourse for that, too. >> uh-huh. >> but if you're dealing with the oceans and dealing with this question of royalties and other things, the fact that we would preserve the right to protect our interests, i think what the senator and others have raised as an issue is, they don't want money going to dictators. they don't want money going to bad actor countries. we can block that. we can block that until the cows come home. and so i think we can be protected. so,
two times the united states has hosted nato summits were in 1978 and 1999 which, of course, was the 50th anniversary during president clinton's term. as i've said, 61 countries as well as the eu, the united nations and the world bank will be in attendance. they'll be a different grouping, if you will, of countries during the course of the day. as i said, the president will fly to chicago on saturday evening. the first meeting that he'll have on sunday will be with president karzai of afghanistan. obviously, an important meeting because a central focus of the summit will be on afghanistan and afghanistan's future. so the first meeting of the day appropriately is going to be with president karzai of afghanistan. the president will then move into various, a series of nato immediatings. initial meeting with just the nato allies at 28. that evening, on sunday evening, the nato allies will meet at soldier field for a working dinner and that will be leaders plus one adviser. on monday morning, the summit will continue at mccormick place with discussions on afghanistan and this will be a broad
to testify on the nato summit which the united states is proud to be hosting in chicago on may 20th and may 21st. with your permission, senator, i would like to submit my full statement and summarize my comments here. >> we appreciate and without objection the full statement will be in the record. >> i appreciate the support and the sustained recognition of the significance of this alliance, transatlantic security. this chicago summit will be the first on american soil in 13 years and the first ever outside of washington. in adang to the community to showcase our nation's great cities a symbol of nato to the united states. it is also an opportunity to underscore to the american people the continued value of this alliance and security challenges we face today. nearly 18 months ago the allies unveiled a new strategic concept for focus in the 21st century. building on the decisions taking in lisbon, the allies have three objectives. was a capabilities and partnerships and if i might, i'd like to say a few words about these. on afghanistan the isaf coalition has prevented that country from serv
's not just the united states cozying up to japan. it's going to explode the cold war and it will heat up in korea. now remember the last lecture of world war ii. we talked about korea being occupied by japan. once the war is over, the united states and the soviet union decide to divide korea with the united states being in control of the southern part of korea and the sev yet union is going to be administering the northern part of korea. eventually both u.s. and uss r agree we will withdraw and allow them to have a degree of self determination. we are going pull out and the soviet union will and the koreans will be able to determine their future and fate. we both did. the difference is when we pulled out, we took everything with us. when the soviet union pulled out, they left a stockpile of weapons. the most mot earn technology they had at the time. that's a temptation that was going to be used. the following summer with the use of soviet military armaments, they will innovate and try to take possession of the country. this is what they had warned us about. they are going to expand into
spies in the united states. they passed information along that we were working on it and close to it. he knew we were very close to having a successful nuclear weapon. well, what truman is going to do then is to give the japanese an opportunity to surrender when they don't. we talked about this and dropped two. first on hiroshima august sixth when there was no surrender. we dropped the second on august 9th and eventual low the japanese surrendered. i mentioned to you, the primary reason why truman dropped it was to save american lives. the estimates of americans, what was the casualty if we were going to invade as high as a million american casualties. exactly. that was the primary reason. today i will give you a secondary reason. it's possible that he decided to drop the bomb not just to save lives, but to signal a shift and to send stalin a completely different message about the role of the u.s. and the relationship with the soviet union. we are going drop the bomb to send you a signal that there is a new sheriff in town. roosevelt is dead and cooperation is dead. harry truman will hav
, it david miliband, a former u.k. ambassador to the united states, and my former british colleague at nato. we have widespread support for this report. we are very grateful for their intellectual import and personal support, so that is what i wanted to say. at the order is for us to have a brief conversation, and then we will be happy to take whatever questions you have. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for that. first of all, it is important to state that the atlantic council as a council does not take a point of view on anything, because it would just be too hard to get all of the members to agree, but i do think one thing we all agree on is a strong alliance and an enduring alliance, and this report points us in that direction. let me ask probably just two questions, and i will go to the audience right away, and two of the more controversial points, clearly, what you're saying on germany is tough, and it is saying it to a germany where many germans would argue, are we not doing the most important thing we could possibly do for the future of europe right now, which is aiding
was going to be the great seal of the united states. and a certain group of american leaders thought that it should be the bald eagle but another group said no, the image of the united states, the seal should show moses leading the children of israel out of bondage and into the promised land. there was this heated debate. america came this close to having moses as its national symbol. you got the folically challenged bird instead. but the authors of the moses seal were none other than thomas jefferson and benjamin franklin. so they had internalized the biblical narrative. now, for many of this generation of founding mothers and founding fathers, the fact that they were the new israel meant that they had a kinship relationship with the old israel, the jewish people. it meant since they were -- they had inherited a new promised land. they had a connection with the old promised land. and they concluded that to be good christians, to be good americans, it was their divinely ordained duty to help the old israel go back and restore their ancient kingdom to help god fulfill his promises to
ended in 2009 but most did not feel it but people in all three states feel the united states should get out of afghanistan by a 2-1 margin. but most approve of the job that obama is doing there. a gender gap is on display. it is too close to call in florida where the president is down but it is 13 points in ohio. and he has a 17-point edge among women in pennsylvania. >>reporter: thank you on the perfect strange day in washington, dc. another former aide to john edwards on the witness stand today. he said he overher the foam presidential candidate asking his mistress whether her baby bump was showing. the foam aide here in the blue tie and glasses said in 26 fix he saw the mistress get off the elevator on the same floor as john edwards and the foam aide says the mistress told him she and john edwards were madly if love. and the next day the aide says john edwards called him to deny he was having an affair and told him rielle hunter was crazy. not long after that run in the aide said campaign staffers had to stay in a different hotel floor from the presidential candidate, but one day in
was in germany on official business. and shortly after general wheeler returned to the united states he suffered a heart attack, and was in walter reed. the only two chiefs who were asked about this dismissed it, one in very crude terms, and wheeler later told the president that there had never been such a meeting. so that is about as far as i can go with that controversial story. as secretary brown alluded to, we associate this period with mcnamara, and with vietnam. but mcnamara's involvement in a whole series of other crises, both foreign and domestic, is simply remarkable. we've heard about the dominican republic, the nato crisis, the middle east war, czechoslovakian invasion, demonstrations in the streets of the united states. any one of these crises could have defined a presidency. for example, if we look at president jimmy carter's administration, it involved notable successes, but it's best remembered for the iranian hostage issue. when the iranians took over the american embassy in tehran, and then held hostage americans for more than a year. think about mcnamara. in january 1968, the n
and that the provision is unique to the united states. this is half an hour. >>> american history tv is in milwaukee at the organization of american historians annual meeting and we're joined by professor eric foner from columbia university and linda kerber with the university of iowa. thanks to both of you for joining us. you'll be talking about at this conference about birthright citizenship and the 14th amendment. why don't you set the stage for us, mr. foner, and what is birthright citizenship? >> well, in a nutshell, this is the principle that any person born in the united states, regardless of the status of their parents, their ancestors, regardless of their race, gender, religion, any other category, is a citizen of the united states just by the virtue of being boerch here. of course you can also become a citizen by naturalization if you're an immigrant. but the important point is this was not a principle that goes all the way back to the institution constitution. it was really implemented or institutionalized in the aftermath of the civil war and the 14th amendment which wrote it into the co
>>> 30 minutes from now the president of the united states will address the american people. >> welcome to cnn's breaking news coverage of president obama's surprise visit to afghanistan. the president will be telling us about the new strategic partnership agreement he has just signed with afghanistan's president outlining the relationship between the united states and afghanistan after the withdrawal of u.s. forces at the end of 2014. white house officials tell us the timing was driven by the negotiations over that agreement at an upcoming nato summit. critics will say it is about politics. everyone knows today is the anniversary of the raid in pakistan that killed osama bin laden. on the ground, do people there -- are they aware that president obama is on the ground? >> reporter: late in the afternoon the sun went down there was a report on afghan media suggesting that he was already in kabul. since then we have seen absolute silence across the city occasionally by helicopters and that is presumably some part of the president in and out of the capital. the speech we are ab
a change. missouri's own harry truman now becomes president of the united states. very interesting circumstances, obviously. we are just about to wrap up the war in europe. we are i land hopping our way into japan. i mean, it looks promising and yet, there are all kinds of pot holes along the way. we still have to finish the defeat of germany. we still have to finish off japan. how we do that, when we do that, and what are the consequences of what we're doing, that's the rest of the story. truman is going to meet with stalin and churchill in potsdam, germany, after hitler is defeated. i mean, it's a new big three now with harry truman being the president now instead of roosevelt. truman's attitude is going to be very different from that of roosevelt. and some indication of that change of u.s. policy comes right away. remember i mentioned to you that even vice president harry truman had not been kept informed of the manhattan project. one of them is, there's a few things you need to know. we've been working on a bomb. it's the biggest, baddest bomb around. here in potsdam, truman ge
of the more tangled problems. historians point* two grievances the united states had against great britain. many are associated with maritime disputes because this is the middle of the napoleonic wars. and the british need to keep them were real baby manned and then the gap british and the then very badly route the period so there is a range of those grievances. the reason it was fought to this many disputes were preceded by a number of years with the summer of 1811 the main grievance was the council. our british form of the executive order. but the british proclaims sweeping blockades designed to stop the new trolls. from taking the experts and the produce in europe. they have been disputing this and it seems it could be negotiated. and the event that the british will not were a. >> it is hard to do public opinion likely due but is the most important but to declaration incongruous were not by wide margins in the house of representatives. it was very close in the senate. 19/13 if three boats had changed the senate, it could not pass the war bell. and it debated near the two weeks and it wa
for the united states and europe. i might add is also a great pleasure to see the french ambassador here this afternoon. thank you for the support that you gave 2 brookings, and that your predecessors gave to fiona hill, was -- and she would be addressing you from this lectern at the date of this conference, but she was locked into a commitment in beijing. but i want to assure you on behalf of brookings and the united states and europe that this does not represent a strategic pivot on the part of the institution or the center to east asia. it has been our pleasure, and i hope of some contribution to the policy community in partnership with the heinrich boll's foundation to bring the conference to you on an annual basis. and i think it is particularly appropriate that we should have filled with us today. -- phil with us today. he is secretary of state of european affairs and is responsible for u.s. policy toward about 50 countries, as well as three key -- and i would add to that currently, someone challenged international institutions -- the north of montreal organization, the european u
of evaluative and educational process that does justice to this committee and justice to the united states senate ratification process, i announce today that i do not currently intend to bring the treaty to a vote before the november elections. we will have extensive hearings. we will do our due diligence. we'll prepare for a vote, but unless somehow the dynamic were to shift or change, we will wait until the passions of the election have subsided before we vote. my hope and expectation is that everyone will exhaust all avenues of inquiry and carefully consider the arguments on both sides. the contentious political season will now give us a chance to do what this committee has historically done best, which is not to politicize but to spend serious thoughtful time deliberating and debating all of the questions of substance. i'm pleased to see that the internet is already beginning to buzz with some discussion of this. but i will say up front there's a lot of misinformation and there's a certain amount of mythology, so i look forward to the process of clearing up the misinformation and the m
in the time i have been here. the french socialists are not strangers for the united states. they shouldn't be strangers. it has been true that it has been 17 years since the socialists were in power at the presidency. of course, they ran the government about a decade ago when spauo was in power. we have always had a very good relationship with any government that is there in france. i am confident we will have a good relationship with this government in france. we do have to see how this government is going to deal with the issues of the day. it's one thing to be campaigning. it is always something different to be governing. it is not me. it is not my job to predict how this will evolve. i will note that francoi francois hollande campaigned to keep france in the military structure. that was a remarkable statement after nicolas sarkozy to come back into the structure. i think france learned in the libya operation that being integrated in the command structure gives you a voice and say over what happens in the internal affairs of the military operation. that's important. you learn there ar
was that russia will also seek a predictable relationship with the united states. will adhere to the treaty on nuclear arms. and push for guarantees that the u.s. missile shield in europe will not be directed against russia. its that something that -- that he wants in writing or is that a trust but verify type of thing. or -- how, what does that mean? that statement? >> well we, have had a discussion with russia since -- since lisbon. where the nato allies agreed -- to, for the first time to deploy a -- a nato territorial missile defense system that would provide protection for nato european territories, populations and forces against a growing ballistic missile threat from outside of europe. that decision was not directed at russia. nor were the systems that were going to be deployed, capable of undermining strategic stability with russia or indeed undermine the nuclear deterrent of russia. we have been saying this for three years. we, we are, more than happy to put it in writing because we have already done so. would be happy to do it in the future. the second thing we did in lisbon was t
will be flying to berlin. and a few days later, he will become to the united states to attend the g-8 summit hosted by president barack obama at camp david. and that will also be very important international test that president hollande will be facing very soon in his presidency. >> we're talking about europe's challenge to austerity. independents 202-628-0205. if you're calling from outside the united states today, we hope that you will, 202-628-0184. as always, we'll be taking your tweets, looking at your e-mails and the conversation continues on facebook. our first call comes from spokane, washington. mary on our line for republicans. you're on "the washington journal." go ahead. >> ye >>. >> caller: yeah, here in the united states, we have the same issues you're having over there, but your countries always seem more on the ball to listen to the people. and i was wondering why -- i always suggested how come you guys go to the people and ask their opinion or like i suggested here in the state, there's a lot of people in the united states that are intelligent. they just can't physically wor
that has helped expedite this thing with terrorism and their attacks on the united states? is it one person or many? who is responsible? >> i don't think there's a nickel's worth of difference between the two policies in terms of foreign policy. the first president bush, mr. clinton, the sec and mr. bush and mr. obama have made it their business to light to the american people, to insist we are being attacked because of what we think here in north america or how we lived rather than with united states government has done. the core of the problem is intervention in other people's business. part of that intervention is unfortunately necessary. we have to defend the saudis and operate because we depend on oil. our support of israel and our intervention in south sudan, the relentless intervention of the united states on issues that are not very important to it is because of what is going on and it is a bipartisan stimulus. it's not just one person. until we stop that war think about stopping at, there is no chance to stop this war and that is why so much about kite has spread so greatly since 2
of international waters. 162 countries and the european community have ratified the treaty but the united states is not to read to the secretary of state hillary clinton and defense secretary leon panetta urged the senate to approve the treaty setting national security, job creation and oil exploration. they testified at the senate foreign relations committee. it's just under three hours. >> the hearing will come to order. thank you all very much for being with us today. secretary clinton, secretary panetta and general dempsey, welcome, we are privileged to have you here today. we thank you for joining us. it's a rare occasion in any committee but in this committee when we have simultaneously a panel of witnesses that brings together americans top diplomat, our country's top descends official and our nation's top military officer. your presence here altogether powerfully underscores the importance that you put on this issue. our committee shares the sense of importance which is why i hope without respect to party or ideology we begin an open, honest and comprehensive discussion about whether the
to place it in a larger perspective, and that is by non-indians who want equality in the united states, wrapping themselves in the flag, and native peoples were here first, and survival, the fact that they have survived as separate cultures uniquely on the planet as american indians is, to me, the most noteworthy. they have not melded into the mainstream. by and large, tribes are still operating. some are in better shape than others, some are larger, some are smaller. some have suffered more, some have suffered slightly less, but they are still here, and if i wanted to change one thing, i would like the mainstream of america to realize that american indians, as tribes and tribal people, are still here, still a vibrant part of the economy, a part of the culture, a part of the arts, literature, music, this is, after all, oklahoma is, after all, an american indian state at its start, and american indians have not disappeared or vanished into the mainstream with dinosaurs, as some people are prone to ask me sometimes. >>> find out where skrchlt span's local content vehicles are going next
in history the united states needs latin america more than latin america needs the united states? now comcast your mind back -- cast your mind back to a decade ago, that question would seem absurd. the united states was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, the most powerful country economically, politically, militarily. why on earth would he need anyone, let alone a continent known for its economic crises, its political instability for having almost no global clout? well, how times have changed. and how used we have become to the fact of change. there's an old jewish joke i heard probably about 5000 times when i was growing up, and it's set in eastern europe in the 19 century in a period when borders were changing very rapidly. and the story goes that a woman is taking up washington in a remote area and the soldier rides up and he declares old woman, from this day forth, this man -- this land is no longer politically his imperial russian. she watches him go. thank god, i couldn't stand another polish winter. [laughter] thank you for laughing. i will pass those laughs on to my fat
's also something going on in the united states but in the united states that process takes on a much different context, and the main reason for that is that in the u.s. you have universal white male suffrage by 1820 unlike in europe where it is france and the 1870s and other countries later on, in the u.s. you have basically full mass democracy very early on and you have it before most immigrants he show up, so when the immigrants begin to be integrated into american society and particularly when they begin to be integrated into american politics, they're being integrated into a much different world than are those immigrants that we talked about in europe. so what i want to do today is talk about how the united states begins to develop a plurist philosophy, a pleuralist vision and i want to trace the roots back to the way politics worked in 19th century america. i have here just to give you a sense of the kind of politics we're talking about, an image from harper's weekly in 1858, around election time or just after election time, in 1858 and shows a saloon and a polling place. they d
. missouri's own harry truman now becomes president of the united states. very interesting circumstances. obviously. we are just about to wrap up the war in europe. we are island hopping our way to japan. i mean, it looks promising and yet there are all kinds of potholes along the way. we still have to finish the defeat of germany. we still have to finish off japan. how we do that, when we do that, and then what are the consequences of what we're doing, that's the rest of this story. true man truman is going to mee with stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeatedh stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeated.truman stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeated.truman stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeated.truman stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeated.ruman i stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeated.pgermany after hitler's defeated.pogerma defeated.tsgermany after hitler defeated.dgermany after hitler' defeated.agermany after hitler' defeated.mgermany after hitler' defeated.potsdam germany after hitler's def
, and comprehensive discussion about whether the united states of america should join the law of the sea convention. i want to underscore the word comprehensive. i've heard from countless military and business leaders for some period of time who believe it is urgent that we ratify this treaty. and i've also spoken with senators and some groups who oppose the treaty. i intend to make certain that the committee does its job properly and thoroughly. we will hear from all sides and we will ask all the questions as we begin the process of educational hearings on this issue. the first since 2007. the senate has seen a fair number of new members elected since then from both sides of the aisle. and our committee also has new members. so i think a thorough examination of the treaty is especially timely and relevant. some of us have had the opportunity in the past to the evaluate this treaty and even to vote on it in this committee. i am personally deeply supportive of it, and i believe it is now more urgent than ever that we ratify it because to remain outside of it is fundamentally directly counter to the bes
the president of the united states turned out to be a dlib fabrication because for sduecury reasons he made a trip under the veil of secrecy. this is standard operating procedure for presidents visiting america's various war zones. shortly after the 2008 election in which he was elected president, after the election but before the new president had been sworn in in december of 2008, then still president george w. bush took one of these surprise trips the, unannounced trips to background. it was december 14th, 2008. that's when this happened. >> yes. everybody calm down for a minute. first of all, thank you for apologizing on behalf of the iraqi people. it doesn't bother me. if you want the facts, it's a size 10 shoe that he threw. >> boy, if you were not surprised enough to find out that the president had surprise, gone to iraq, the president having a shoe hurled at him was definitely a surprise that day. when you look at the official transcript from this, we posted a link to it on our blog tonight. when you go through the transcript of this event, when you get to the part where the guy thr
. historically each time that the united states has entered into almost any kind of treaty we have been very acidious in doing everything we could to follow that treaty. we have not always been afforded the reciprocal courtesy. i suggest that a new start is a good example of what happens when we don't negotiate in a way that is only in the best interest of the united states. we in the first phase of new start reduced our strategic war head counts significantly without really impacting the russians a great deal when the tactical war heads were left completely out of the equation and part of that promise was that we would modernize our nuclear weapons capability. and it just seems like over time things degrade. and to give a president as flexible as this one the ability to enter into treaties without congressional approval on something as critical as our space assets and our space access is, i think, a foolish ernd on our part and i hope we suggest that. >> gentleman from california, five minutes. >> some time ago mr. andrews suggested that we try to avoid presidential politics as we continue
connolly looks at pluralism in the united states. this 1:15 class took place at ball state university in indiana. >>> on tuesday in class, we looked at the social question in europe. and one of the things we talk about was the ways in which european governments attempted to appease the working classes, alleviate their concerns, reduce social tension. one of the tools they used was mass politics, as we talked about. that's also something that's going on in the united states. but in the united states, that process takes on a much different context. the main reason for that is that in the u.s., you have universal white male suffrage by 1820. unlike in europe where it is france and the 1870s and other countries later on, in the u.s. you have basically full mass democracy very early on and you have it before most immigrants show up, so when the immigrants begin to be integrated into american society and particularly when they begin to be integrated into american politics, they're being integrated into a much different world than are those immigrants that we talked about in europe. so what
anything provocative. even if it the united states doesn't could that, i worry the europeans would do that and more so the chinese, the russians and others. so we cannot allow that to happen. if iran is going to continue enriching during this process, we have to continue ratcheting up the sanctions. otherwise we're in a losing scenario here. >> nick? >> warren, i think the problem in both democratic and republican administrations in the past is that we haven't believed in diplomacy enough to give it a real try. every administration from jimmy carter to reagan on through to barack obama has had one or two disyou will tree meetings with the iranians in some conference room in vienna or geneva and that's it. so here's the problem for us. we're in an overheated political environment, we're in an election year. and some people will want to set up a construct that if the president doesn't succeed within a month or two, he'll have failed. and that's not in our interest. we've got to have more patience, and a longer-term strategic view. so i would say, commit ourselves to a serious bout of di
was in baghdad was to sign the agreement which committed the united states to end our war in iraq. it was an agreement that president obama then followed through on. the last u.s. troops left iraq in december. today, in afghanistan it was not a status of forces agreement. it was called a strategic partnership agreement between the u.s. and afghan government but the idea is the same. it's to commit both countries to a plan by which the united states will end our war there. >> today i signed an agreement between the united states and afghanistan that defines a new relationship between our countries. a future in which afghans are responsible for the security of their nation and we build an equal partnership between two states. as we move forward some people will ask why we need a firm timeline. the answer is clear. our goal is not to build a country in america's image or to eradicate the taliban. these objectives would require in many years, many more dollars and most importantly many more american lives. our goal is to destroy al qaeda and we on path to do exactly that. afghans want
that the president has landed safely in afghanistan, he flu there year night from the the united states. obviously he is there on the one year anniversary of the raid across the border in pakistan that led to the death of osama bin laden. we also know the president will address the nation tonight in the 7:00 hour, 7:30 p.m., he will address the nation from afghanistan. and we know while there he is scheduled to meet with the afghan president, hamid karzai and the two ledder leaders ared to sign a extstrategic agreemen between the two countries. this would create an alliance between the two countries essentially saying about this the years going forward when the u.s. combat troops are out of afghanistan, there would still be training and cooperation between the two countries. that has been morimportant to t united states to have a footprint in afghanistan going forward and as the country marks one year since the death of osama bin laden, there are still big questions about the security situation in afghanistan. you were talking about occasional problems with the taliban. and this is separate from the
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 7,639 (some duplicates have been removed)